• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hobby Lobby invests in companies that makes IUD's/Plan-B Contraceptives

....

This was a huge stretch they ruled it constitutional under tax law even though the obama administration maintained it wasn't a tax but a penalty. a penalty would have been unconstitutional, but roberts screwed up and said it was a tax. that was the only way this bill or at least the mandate passed.
....

Actually it was republicans that were on the committee who insisted that the final draft of health care act replace the word penalty with the word tax all through the act.

They thought the word tax was less palatable but the word tax backfired on the republicans when the act was reviewed by the Supreme Court.
 
Actually it was republicans that were on the committee who insisted that the final draft of health care act replace the word penalty with the word tax all through the act.

They thought the word tax was less palatable but the word tax backfired on the republicans when the act was reviewed by the Supreme Court.

proof or evidence?
 
And she's still 100x more qualified to interpret the law than you.


It's not an abortion drug anymore than Rogaine is. Yet HL doesn't seem to object to Rogaine or a myriad of other drugs whose labels clearly warn against pregnant women using them. Btw, HL sells clothes hangers in their store and we all know what those can be used for.

Exaggerate much?
No doubt...at LEAST 100x. Probably a lot more. Thats why its so tragic when Supreme Court justices and federal judge trade jurisprudence for opinion and ideology.

And no...I'm not exaggerating at all, though it is rather comical for you to say "exaggerate much" after your idiotic comment about coat hangers.
 
Please provide a link to the FDA which show such a warning. When verifying this statement all I could find was:

5.2
Existing Pregnancy Plan B One-Step is not effective in terminating an existing pregnancy.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021998lbl.pdf


From the FDA.



>>>>

You are correct.

Plan B does cause an abortion nor does it keep a fertilized from implanting.

Actually progesterone is needed for implantation and for the zygote to stay implanted which is why GYNs prescribe extra progesterone for patients who are at high risk for miscarriages and why extra progesterone is given to women who have IVF treatments to become pregnant.

And what affect does this hormone have on progesterone levels?

Plan b only contains progesterone. Therefore if an egg were already fertilized when plan b was taken plan b would help with implantation and would aide in the zygote staying implanted which is why plan b only works when the egg has not yet been fertilized.

Plan B does not keep a fertilized egg from implanting.

from:



Catholic journal says Plan B does not cause abortions


Plan B, the nation’s most widely used emergency contraceptive, works only as a contraceptive and does not cause abortions, according to an article in the January-February issue of Health Progress, the official journal of the Catholic Health Association.

< SNIP>

Reznik wrote that since it takes about a week from an egg’s fertilization to its implantation, the scientific evidence that Plan B treatment is completely ineffective after five days is overwhelming: It works only by preventing fertilization, not by preventing implantation.

Otherwise, she said, the drug would also be found effective from five to 12 days after coitus,
because that is the time frame between the last chance for a sperm to fertilize an egg and the time a fertilized egg would implant. The declining effectiveness of Plan B between 48 and 120 hours after coitus adds to the argument that preventing a fertilized egg from being implanted is not one of its effects, she said.

Catholic journal says Plan B does not cause abortions | National Catholic Reporter
Catholic journal says Plan B does not cause abortions | National Catholic Reporter

So what's the point of taking it the "morning after"?
Here is an animated science video that explains in simple terms how Plan B works and what the point is in taking it the "morning after".

The Science of 'Plan B' - Emergency Contraception - YouTube
 
I posted what is on the FDA label, and the definition of contraindication.

The contraindication warning is so that women who are pregnant know the pill may cause a formed fetus to abort.

....

Wrong, the contraindication does not indicate the pill may cause a formed fetus to abort.... You are mistaken.
 
From what i understand is that Plan B does not allow the egg to attach to the uterus. so if the egg is fertilized and try's to attach it can't therefore it aborts. If you believe that life begins at conception like most Christians and Catholics do then that is considered an abortion.

a fertilized egg would be considered an existing pregnancy.

You are mistaken.

Plan B only delays ovulation.
It does not inhibit implantation.
 
There is a difference in not allowing a pregancy to happen and killing an existing pregnancy. if you don't know the difference then i can't help you.
plan b kills an existing pregnancy. typical birth control doesn't kill existing pregnancies it simply doesn't allow them to happen.

Again you mistaken.

Plan B does not kill an existing pregnancy.

In fact plan B only contains progesterone which doctors use in high risk pregnancies to keep a zygote ( fertilized egg ) from miscarrying ( self aborting ).
 
You are mistaken.

Plan B only delays ovulation.
It does not inhibit implantation.

No i am not mistaken. that is just 2 of the possibilities and it depends on where you are.

from webmd

It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining

no it contains 1.5 milligrams of levonorgestrel
 
Foregoing: Just mentioned or stated; preceding. Said, written, or encountered just before; previous


There wasn't a demand for an educated workforce when the framers wrote the constitution. The industrial revolution changed all that and demanded the government impose mandatory education so the people could get a job in industry. Helping society adapt to new technology is considered providing for the general welfare.

I don't see anyone using violent force on you...at least your typing fingers still seem to work. Taxation and spending is the most important power that congress has.



You seem to be confusing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. Under the AoC the states failed to voluntarily pay taxes which helped to convince the founders of the constitution that the federal government needed strong taxation authority.



Alexander Hamilton won the day as far as taxation and spending on general welfare goes.....


"With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;533 Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers, in other words, as little more than a power of self–support.534 From an early date Congress has acted upon the interpretation espoused by Hamilton..."
CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article I


"... It must embrace a provision for the support of the national civil list; for the payment of the national debts contracted, or that may be contracted; and, in general, for all those matters which will call for disbursements out of the national treasury. The conclusion is, that there must be interwoven, in the frame of the government, a general power of taxation, in one shape or another.

Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions. A complete power, therefore, to procure a regular and adequate supply of it, as far as the resources of the community will permit, may be regarded as an indispensable ingredient in every constitution. From a deficiency in this particular, one of two evils must ensue; either the people must be subjected to continual plunder, as a substitute for a more eligible mode of supplying the public wants, or the government must sink into a fatal atrophy, and, in a short course of time, perish...."
https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/20...-on-taxes-and-the-constitution-federalist-30/


“The public necessities must be satisfied; this can only be done by contributions of the whole society. “ - Alexander Hamilton, The Continentalist VI

foregoing powers means....... the powers listed in article 1 section 8

example: congress is granted the power of money...therefore it can create any federal laws dealing with u.s. currency.

if the founders rejected education as a power of the federal government at the convention, ..how can government exercise a power not granted to them?

if i am forced by the government to perform an action, such a labor for another citizen, or pay the cost for material goods or services for another citizen, then i am in servitude to that citizen for their needs of goods and services.

nothing can be a right, if it lays a burden or cost on to another citizen.

if you going to quote Hamilton quote all of him in context, not only the parts you like.....Hamilton is clear, government is limited and it cannot tax for anything, and the government spend the money on anything it just wants to do.
 
Actually it was republicans that were on the committee who insisted that the final draft of health care act replace the word penalty with the word tax all through the act.

They thought the word tax was less palatable but the word tax backfired on the republicans when the act was reviewed by the Supreme Court.

no this is not correct, the argument at the USSC, the government lawyers, changed it during the court case from penalty to a tax, because they was actually advised by liberal members on the court, that thier case would go no where... if they stuck to that position.....i know listened to the oral arguments when it happened that day
 
The point is 80% of the country was already being fiscally responsible and in this particular case, Hobby Lobby was already both providing insurance for their employees as well as paying unskilled workers twice the minimum wage. You can bleat on all about fiscal responsibility. I doubt you understand the meaning of the term. To you fiscal responsibility is someone ELSE paying the bills.

No, to me fiscal responsibility is not complaining about a pound of social welfare spending if I am unwilling to use an ounce of prevention, instead.
 
SO your defense is HL's ignorance

Not sure if that's a legally valid defense, but it sure is a credible one

What defense? I don't care what Hobby Lobby does.

I just think it's idiotic to call them hypocritical over something they likely had no idea about and I think the outrage is completely contrived. I think if an ultra-conservative news magazine found that Planned Parenthood's employees 401(k)s contained mutual funds that contained stocks of companies who are Pro Life you would have absolutely nothing to say. Scratch that, I think you'd be insisting that it's irrational for Planned Parenthood to delve that deeply into their employee's retirement stock.
 
Last edited:
Why I agree with you, Sir. This whole thing on it's OK for Hobby Lobby to invest in companies that makes profit in birth control and not seeing anything wrong with that, but that same company (Hobby Lobby) turns around and does a double-take and all of a sudden says that they (Hobby Lobby) are not going to pay for contraceptives that they helped invest in is one h*** of a contradiction that's quite noticeable.

It's like having your cake and eating it too. I guess the best way to describe this is integrity; it does say a lot about a person or a company. :shrug:

Is it safe to say you're very young? I mean what adult doesn't know what a 401(k) plan is?

Hobby Lobby isn't investing in companies who profit from birth control. They're literally investing in nothing here. A 401(k) is a retirement plan. It's their employee's plan but most employers match contributions up to a point. That's all Hobby Lobby is doing. It's extremely doubtful that they have any idea what's in *ANY* of their employees 401(k) plans and there is no real reason they should. It's pretty doubtful that ownership has much idea what's in their 401(k) plan either. It's pretty doubtful that ownership has much idea which companies even make birth control. I certainly don't.
 
Last edited:
No, to me fiscal responsibility is not complaining about a pound of social welfare spending if I am unwilling to use an ounce of prevention, instead.
Except you ARE the one complaining. Hobby Lobby was a model organization providing minimum wage workers an average salary of TWICE the minimum wage AND providing them health care. But because people like you didnt think it was fair that they didnt provide something different, they have been sued, and now have put that healthcare at risk for 15,000.

BTW...how many people do YOU employ? Do YOU pay them twice minimum wage for unskilled workers? Do YOU provide for the healthcare needs for 15,000 people?
 
Except you ARE the one complaining. Hobby Lobby was a model organization providing minimum wage workers an average salary of TWICE the minimum wage AND providing them health care. But because people like you didnt think it was fair that they didnt provide something different, they have been sued, and now have put that healthcare at risk for 15,000.

BTW...how many people do YOU employ? Do YOU pay them twice minimum wage for unskilled workers? Do YOU provide for the healthcare needs for 15,000 people?

Why should a Capitalist "impose" morals with merely his Capital?
 
Is it safe to say you're very young? I mean what adult doesn't know what a 401(k) plan is?

Hobby Lobby isn't investing in companies who profit from birth control. They're literally investing in nothing here. A 401(k) is a retirement plan. It's their employee's plan but most employers match contributions up to a point. That's all Hobby Lobby is doing. It's extremely doubtful that they have any idea what's in *ANY* of their employees 401(k) plans and there is no real reason they should. It's pretty doubtful that ownership has much idea what's in their 401(k) plan either. It's pretty doubtful that ownership has much idea which companies even make birth control. I certainly don't.

If they are contributing money that buys stock in those companies they are certainly "investing" and supporting those companies. That's the slippery slope they have chosen. It is also why they will fail in this foolish effort.
 
Is it safe to say you're very young? I mean what adult doesn't know what a 401(k) plan is?

Hobby Lobby isn't investing in companies who profit from birth control. They're literally investing in nothing here. A 401(k) is a retirement plan. It's their employee's plan but most employers match contributions up to a point. That's all Hobby Lobby is doing. It's extremely doubtful that they have any idea what's in *ANY* of their employees 401(k) plans and there is no real reason they should. It's pretty doubtful that ownership has much idea what's in their 401(k) plan either. It's pretty doubtful that ownership has much idea which companies even make birth control. I certainly don't.

I believe this should be anecdotal evidence that a one size morality fits all approach may not be in accordance with the subjective value of morals of everyone.
 
Why should a Capitalist "impose" morals with merely his Capital?
Love how you continue to ignore the fact that they are doing what you merely bleat on about. Very telling.
 
If they are contributing money that buys stock in those companies they are certainly "investing" and supporting those companies. That's the slippery slope they have chosen. It is also why they will fail in this foolish effort.


No they are not, the story is misleading.

Let me explain how 401(k) contributions work.

1. Company selects a Fund Manager (could be MetLife, ING, Schwab, etc...).

2. The employee enrolls for payroll deduction from their pay that is deducted and transferred to the Fund Manager who then deposits the money in their "account" and the investments are then made based on the fund families that the investor selects based on the financial planning goals.

3. As part of the compensation of the employee the company can chose to match some (based on a percent, dollar amount, or none at all) the employee contribution. Those funds are paid the the employee and distributed to the Fund Manager who then invests it from the investors account in the funds the investor selected.​


The Company (Hobby Lobby) does not do any investing, the pay the employees who becomes the investor and it is their money deposited in the Fund Managers account as an investor.

Saying it's Hobby Lobby's money being invested is false, it's like saying the Hobby Lobby buys beer because they pay me wages and after work I stop at a 7-11 and buy a six-pack of Bud Lite.



>>>>
 
No they are not, the story is misleading.

Let me explain how 401(k) contributions work.

1. Company selects a Fund Manager (could be MetLife, ING, Schwab, etc...).

2. The employee enrolls for payroll deduction from their pay that is deducted and transferred to the Fund Manager who then deposits the money in their "account" and the investments are then made based on the fund families that the investor selects based on the financial planning goals.

3. As part of the compensation of the employee the company can chose to match some (based on a percent, dollar amount, or none at all) the employee contribution. Those funds are paid the the employee and distributed to the Fund Manager who then invests it from the investors account in the funds the investor selected.​


The Company (Hobby Lobby) does not do any investing, the pay the employees who becomes the investor and it is their money deposited in the Fund Managers account as an investor.

Saying it's Hobby Lobby's money being invested is false, it's like saying the Hobby Lobby buys beer because they pay me wages and after work I stop at a 7-11 and buy a six-pack of Bud Lite.



>>>>

So you are saying that paying money to those that invest that same money is not he same as investing themselves? Pure semantics.
 
So you are saying that paying money to those that invest that same money is not he same as investing themselves? Pure semantics.


Are you saying that my employer gives me money for work in my paycheck and when I stop at 7-11 they own the beer that I buy?



>>>>
 
It astounds me how many people are ignorant of how a 401(k)/mutual funds work. It really makes me wonder how many people critical of Hobby Lobby in this instance know the details of their own (or even have their own).
 
Are you saying that my employer gives me money for work in my paycheck and when I stop at 7-11 they own the beer that I buy?



>>>>

Your employer gives you extra money to invest in 7-11? They must like big gulps.
 
Except you ARE the one complaining. Hobby Lobby was a model organization providing minimum wage workers an average salary of TWICE the minimum wage AND providing them health care. But because people like you didnt think it was fair that they didnt provide something different, they have been sued, and now have put that healthcare at risk for 15,000.

BTW...how many people do YOU employ? Do YOU pay them twice minimum wage for unskilled workers? Do YOU provide for the healthcare needs for 15,000 people?
I thought it was HL that was suing the government because they didn't want emergency contraceptives offered under their group health insurance policy. But now you are saying that HL is being sued? By whom?
 
Back
Top Bottom